WBBFanWest
-
Posts
3,151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by WBBFanWest
-
-
For me, I've scratched my head a few times over roster decisions that Coach O'Shea has made, but I've always remembered that there are things that I don't know/understand, so who am I to criticize? But this last Grey Cup, he allowed injured players, who had no business being out there, to not only dress, but to start. He allowed this to happen and there was no good reason for it. I'm assuming that over the off season, someone in the organization has had a talk with him about his loyalty to his players and how sometimes you have to put winning ahead of loyalty. He's a great coach, but like all of us, has a blind spot or two that he needs to get coached up on.
- BigBlueFanatic and JCon
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, JCon said:
That's exactly what the guardian helmet does. Literally what it is designed for.
A better analogy would be if they put the airbags on the outside of the car. Sure, it would lessen the impact forces inside the vehicle a bit, but that body slamming into the steering wheel won't notice. That extra padding on the outside of the helmet likely does help a bit, but the point is the brain bashing into the skull, repeatedly.
- Fatty Liver and Bigblue204
-
2
-
15 minutes ago, Booch said:
the rules are what make it great...not who's under the helmet...and the best available players would make it even better....talent/competition wise....If they were all American....all Japanese...all Mexican....all white...blck...combo of all nations....and played in Canada....under the same rules...in same stadiums....wouldn't bother me one bit....If it was all Canadian tho...I'd watch...to a point....but would not pay the money I do now when attending for a sub par product....I could watch Junioor or Canadian University for that....for a fraction of the price...BTW...I was born in Canada and lived here till about 16....and moved back when I entered the work force...So i'm not some Anti-Canadian basher
If someone thinks that we could get rid of the Canadian ratio, employ mostly all Americans trying to get into the NFL, and not adopt NFL rules is more than a bit delusional. Get rid of the radio and the CFL is over.
-
You know, if some American doesn't want to come to Canada to try out for a job in the CANADIAN football league, I'm just fine with that.
- Fatty Liver, Pepper_Brooks, ddanger and 4 others
-
4
-
3
-
5 hours ago, WinnipegGordo said:
If that is the case how were the Argos expected to justify giving Chad Kelly 100k in promo money?
Thats alot to give to one player. How many appearances was he expected to make?
I would expect he'd attend every ladies night in the TO area
-
4 hours ago, 17to85 said:
You've never been in a job where you kept working there despite abuse from people above you? You've never known someone in the same situation? Sometimes people don't want to be driven from a job they like because of another person and they try and stick it out.
Every statement from Bluto is more douchy than the last. I pray this guy doesn't have adaughter.
- Rod Black, Rex_Banner and Noeller
-
2
-
1
-
15 hours ago, greenrider55 said:
An automatic ticket to the Grey Cup is what I’ve heard.
Don't know about automatic, but I understand that the Riders will get a good discount on their tickets.
-
11 hours ago, Goalie said:
The real reason you don’t see renovations on old stadiums is because the cost probably to renovate is close to the cost of a new modern smaller one.
let’s be real, you starting taking things down in old buildings and old homes for that matter, there’s gonna be **** behind the walls you don’t wanna see that doesn’t meet todays codes. It’s a mess once you start opening up walls in old homes and buildings. The asbestos removal costs alone would be millions. Sometimes it’s cheaper to knock it down and redo it so you don’t have to in 10 years. Putting lipstick on a pig makes the pig cuter but it’s still a pig.
And yet, there are tons of people in Saskatchewan who have no issue with that at all.
- JCon, Fatty Liver, the watcher and 1 other
-
1
-
3
-
2 hours ago, Rich said:
Who would even get the money when a non profit is sold privately?
The article talks about how the club is in rough times financially, some due to the pandemic, some due to the record. Club success is cyclical and that should not be reason to sell the club.
The other they give is they need a new stadium. If we've learned anything over the last 20 years, private owners aren't typically willing to put down a lot of their own capital to build stadiums / arenas. Like it or not, this inevitably comes from the tax payer.
So why sell the club to a private owner to reap that potential benefit?
Don't like this one bit.
There would be by-laws in place that would lay out what would happen. In many cases, the money goes into some sort of charitable organization.
-
23 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
In 1986, our three qbs were Tom Clements, John Hufnagel, Jim Zorn & on the PR Tom Muecke. I see Muecke was dressed & on the sidelines. Clements was out of the lineup with an injury so he was elevated to #3 qb position.
The game itself hasn't changed that much since 1986. I know Rich was talking about that if they went back 40 years from this game shown it would be 1946 but the same basic stuff is still going on. The equipment (helmets) are better & we have video replays. That fumble may have been overturned for a TD today if it touched the white end zone line. The game really changed from 1946-86 & not so much from 1986-2024.
I just remember being so pissed at Kehoe after that game. He had two jobs.... Find a hole & score & then PROTECT THE ******* BALL!!!!!!!
that's three things
-
6 minutes ago, Mark H. said:
What exactly is there to be gained from roasting Kelly on here? Trotting out harassment stats? It's not our problem to solve. And even if it were, we sure as cuss would not be doing it here.
It's in the description of the forum...
- Noeller, bearpants and Bigblue204
-
1
-
2
-
1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:
Please go ahead and explain it.
Which of these do you think applies?
She didn't quit with cause or fail to comply with a contract. The company didn't change the terms of employment or force her to quit.
If they had offered her a contract and she turned it down because of the situation, then she'd have a constructive dismissal situation, but that's not what happened. She's complaining that they didn't offer her a new contract. Why would she complain if the situation made her work environment untenable anyway? If they offered and she accepted, then she'd be accepting Kelly's behavior.
Nope. I had to learn, feel free to do the same and that's not just googling "constructive dismissal" and posting the first definition you find.
-
1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:
I'm not minimizing anything, nor did I didn't say it is acceptable to me.
This comment proves what I'm actually saying. You've already decided guilt based on only one side of the story. You assume that anyone who wants to know the other side of the story is a horrible human being who thinks sexual harassment is OK. Par for the course. Have an opinion based on part the information and then attack those who question your opinion.
Assuming that the contract has an end date that has passed, then the team doesn't have to renew it even if they have renewed it multiple times before. That's one difference between contract workers and employees.
Lets take Bailey as an example. Multiple contracts. Didn't do anything wrong. Bombers decided not to pick him up this year. No harm. No foul.
Again, it is not that cut and dried, and your comparison to a player contract is just plain silly. Apples and oranges. But I'm not going to explain all the nuances of employer/employee law to someone who believes that he knows way more than he clearly does.
-
11 minutes ago, Mike said:
Mostly just that everyone is already proclaiming this guy is guilty because he’s got a reputation and if it were a Bomber, there would be cries of “let the process play out”
I wonder if anyone ever stopped to wonder if the reason this became public is because he has this reputation and the woman knew this would be effective.
Disclaimer: if he’s guilty of the claims, he’s a total piece of crap
I just see the double standard here for what it is and someone’s right to due process shouldn't depend on what team colours they wear
Thank you so much for being the only level headed person here. What would we do without your insight into how "everyone" acts?
-
6 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:
It's not wrongful dismissal. They didn't dismiss her, they simply didn't pick up her next contract.
Corroboration of at least the bus part of the complaint should be easy, but we don't even have that yet, but assuming the story is true, and we only have her side of it, it's workplace harassment & likely uttering threats.
People need to stop throwing around terms like 'Sexual Predator'. It weakens the term so much as to be useless. Asking a girl out, even multiple times, and complaining that she was going out with someone else on a bus doesn't rise to the level of Sexual Predator.
Everyone jumping on the bandwagon to 'protect' her after only hearing her side of the story is exactly why they went to the media in the first place. Kelly & Murphy have already been convicted in the court of public opinion. The Argos can't attack her or the story without coming off as evil. IMO that's why we won't see anything in the press from there side.
If you do some research, you'll find that, depending on the contract, not renewing can be considered constructive dismissal, which is actionable by the employee. Without knowing all the terms of this particular contract, it's impossible to say if this is or isn't. Just that it's not that cut and dried.
-
9 minutes ago, Brandon said:
In fairness she could be mainly doing this for attention and/or to kill Kelly's reputation.
Yes, because complaints like this get you so much great attention...
-
9 minutes ago, Mike said:
I wonder how we’d be reacting to this news if it were about Dalton Schoen
If he was accused of what Kelly is alleged to have done, and if someone like Walters was alleged to have fired the victim and attempted to cover it up, I'd call for an investigation. If the investigation found that the victim's claims were accurate, I'd want them both gone, right now. Know why? Because it's the right thing to do, period. And that's not even considering that neither of them has the reputation of Kelly or Murphy. And again, for those that are suggesting that in this TO situation, the young woman is maybe looking for a quick payday, consider that the amount she's asking for isn't much at all by today's standards, and that sadly, she'll likely never be able to work in pro sports again. Something tells me that she has far more to lose than to gain from this situation. If that's the case, it might suggest something else entirely...
-
20 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:
For how long? Until the court case is done? Remember that the team itself has been named as part of the lawsuit, so it’s not as simple as “until their internal investigation is done”, since they are part of their own investigation. Do you think they will rule against themselves and admit wrongdoing if they plan to contest the civil suit? And suppose they find Kelly did wrong in their investigation and then he is cleared civilly in the suit - does he then have a wrongful termination suit against them? Or vice versa, they find he did no wrong and he loses the civil suit, does the employee get extra damages in another defamation suit against the club? Or does the court get tainted by the club’s findings, one way or another?
Too many folks here ready to tar and feather based on half the story only told so far from one side and not be patient enough to let the judicial process play out. Harmful to both sides.
Dude, it happens all the time in various lines of work. The investigation focuses on policies and procedures. If the company is smart, they hire an outside agency (often a law firm) to conduct the inquiry, which is an employment matter and completely separate from any other civil matter. It's actually the opposite of the tar and feather stuff you're accusing people of, but hey righteous indignation feels so good, right?
-
8 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
Just for the sake of argument, What if the allegations by this coach are found to be not true & the Argos had already tossed Kelly on heresay to placate the fans of other teams calling for his blood. MLSE would be dragged into court & sued for millions of dollars in damages by Kelly. And while it's true MLSE has hundreds of millions of dollars that any judgement found against it would be but a pittance, the damage to the brand would be far, far worse. Let's see what the CFL does about this.
I'm not taking Kelly's side. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here for the sake of discussion.
You don't turf him. You suspend him.
-
2 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
The league can't act on heresay or a lawsuit. This will have to go to court.
Not at all true. An employer can initiate their own investigation. They can also suspend anyone involved until such time as the investigation concludes. It's actually a good idea to do so, for liability purposes.
-
But, but, but, Bluto's a great guy... Anyone who would put a child's game played by grown men ahead of wanting to see that if they did something as despicable as this is described to have happened is, in my opinion, not such a great guy. When you have a daughter have to deal with sexual violence, there can be zero tolerance for this kind of ****.
-
27 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:
Sure- but clearly that day ain't here yet.
But, I don't think @Fatty Liver's take is a horrible one.
Ya, because it's way easier to make excuses than it is to condemn that sort of action and take a stand...
Just now, Fatty Liver said:Do you not recognize a football locker room as an extremely rarefied environment that is seldom duplicated within the rest of society? I would also advise my daughter not to become a prison guard for her own mental and physical well being. You can wish for a rainbow and unicorn world all you like but that's not yet the current reality, and looking around at the world today, I'm not sure it's even on the distant horizon.
Gee, I wonder why that would be...
-
1 hour ago, Fatty Liver said:
If she was my daughter I'd advise taking a job working intimately with 100 football players with no other women in sight was not a good idea, something was bound to happen, and it did. For cripes sake, her contract only paid $25,000, she could have made more in any other situation.
Maybe instead of cautioning your daughter to limit herself because of what men might do, you could champion her right to take a job and tell men that they should keep their hands/comments to themselves. Your comment smacks of "look at the way she was dressed, she was asking for it". Don't teach girls to be careful, teach boys that that stuff is not ok.
52 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:That may be the ideal, but it's not the reality.
That's nothing more than a pathetic excuse.
44 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:Not at all, but you're naive if you think a testosterone filled locker room is a certified "work safe environment". Maybe part of her job was to shoot players up with pain killers so they can perform their duties for our amusement.
Pro tip: when you're in a hole, stop digging.
GDT 3 pm: Victory Day
in Blue Bomber Discussion
Posted
Pretty lofty attendance goal, but hey, shoot for the stars